IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 May 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140005711 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that his previous units failed to identify that he was suffering from depression and possibly from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). As a result he attempted to self-medicate to cope with the events going on in his life at the time. He discussed several unfortunate events that occurred in his life which led to him self-medicating. He never received the proper reintegrating with his unit upon returning from deployment. He would like his discharge upgraded so that he may take full advantage of his education benefits. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 27 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 15 February 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, 14-12c(2) JKK, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: G Co, 203rd BSB, 3rd BCT, 3rd ID, Fort Benning GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 12 April 2010, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 10 months, 4 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 10 months, 15 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA/080401-100411/HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92F10, Petroleum supply Specialist m. GT Score: 97 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (090526-100527) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-CS,GWOTSM ASR, OSR, C/Ach r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 April 2008 for a period of 3 years and 22 weeks. He was 21 years old at the time of entry. He reenlisted on 12 April 2010, for a period of 4 years. He served a one year combat tour in Iraq. He earned several awards consisting of an ARCOM and two AAMs. He completed 3 years, 10 months, and 15 days of active duty service. He was serving at Fort Benning, GA at the time his discharge proceedings were initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence shows that on 6 December 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, for misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs, specifically for testing positive for Spice (110825). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 10 January 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit a statement on his behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 30 January 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 15 February 2012, for misconduct (drug abuse), under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), with an SPD Code of JKK, and an RE code of 4. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There is one positive urinalysis reports contained in the record: PO, Probable Cause, dated 25 August 2011, spice 2. Article 15, dated 11 November 2011, for wrongfully using spice (110822-110825). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $733.00 pay per month for two months (suspended until 120510), and extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG). 3. Two CID Agent’s Investigation Report, with allied documents, dated 27 September 2011 and 6 October 2011, where the applicant was the subject of an investigation based on his failure to obey a lawful order for wrongful use, possession, and distribution of spice. 4. Three negative counseling statements dated 26 August 2011 (for smoking spice), 29 November 2011 (recommendation for administrative separation under Chapter 14-12c(2), and 15 February 2012 (loss or damage of military property). 5. A blank DD Form 8003 (Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment Form. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an online application received on 27 March 2014; a DD Form 214; and a Fetal Death Certificate. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None provided with the application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and several negative counseling statements. 3. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. 4. The applicant contends his previous units failed to identify that he was suffering from depression and possibly from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 5. The record shows that on 20 October 2011, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, was able to recognize right from wrong and was fit for full duty, to include deployment. The applicant was screened for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury by competent medical authority with both tests scoring negative results. 6. The applicant contends that he suffered through several unfortunate incidents that affected his behavior and caused him to self medicate, which ultimately led to his discharged; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 7. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 8. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 9. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 30 May 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: None Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: No Change Characterization to: No Change Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change Grade Restoration to: NA Other: NA Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140005711 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1